Saturday, February 23, 2008

Hubbell's Angry White Men

According to Gary Hubbell there is an important group being forgotten in American politics: Angry White Men. Hubbell believes that there are millions of white men who share the traits of being hard-working, self-reliant, independent and resourceful. They will accept others of any background who also work hard to make their own way.

What angers these men is unfair competition from illegal immigrants; the outsourcing of jobs to low wage workers overseas; and the squandering of tax dollars on "victim" groups. For these men, writes Hubbell, the symbol of what is wrong with America is Hillary Clinton who is loathed by them with a passion.

It's no accident that the kind of man being described by Hubbell also exists in Australia. Both Australia and the US had their frontiersmen, their pioneering settlers. This role required a hardy masculinity characterised by self-reliance and resourcefulness.

The frontiersman qualities of Hubbell's Angry White Men are clear in the following passages of his column:

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country ...

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter ...

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy ...

There is much to admire in such men. Hubbell presents them to us as an ideal type, as a genuinely masculine group of men who are proudly hard-working and capable.

What Hubbell misses, though, are the flaws in the frontiersman ethos. It's one thing to be self-reliant and resourceful when you are left to yourself on a homestead in a small pioneering community. These qualities aren't sufficient, though, in a larger, more settled society. Men are then called on to defend a particular civilisation.

I'll try to describe the problem this way. I think it's true that many white men think the way that Hubbell claims they do. They believe that they can make their way regardless of what life throws at them and that this defines masculine strength. This has the virtue of safeguarding white men from a passive victim group mentality; however, it also leads to an overconfident individualism, in which a defence of the culture and institutions of their civilisation is neglected.

We are no longer frontiersmen. We need a masculine ideal which continues to emphasise resilience, but which also holds us to a responsibility to defend our civilisation. This means identifying oneself as part of a larger whole, to which some of our individual strength is directed. It means taking on a leadership role not only within a business or a family, but also in the realms of politics and culture.

Hubbell thinks that his Angry White Men might act as spoilers to someone like Hillary on election day. This, though, is a setting of their sights too low. It reflects the problem with the masculine ideal as it stands now amongst white men in America. It should be thought natural that such men, capable and resourceful as they are, would act to lead society at all levels. Instead, they are consigned to the role of politically ignored spoilers, a role which should flag the failure in modern America of the frontiersman ethos.

16 comments:

Aye. True. Much to admire, but also a concern. The strength and self-reliance is to be admired and respected and, if all else fails, will be necessary.

But what is a concern is the often-liberal tough individualism that puts up with almost anything until some magic line is crossed and then its all-out-war. e.g. journalist/blogger John Birmingham commented in response to my query "One wonders where he will draw the line with creeping Islamisation: if not the burqa, then what?" he replied "When they try to put a burqa on my chix. Then it gets bloody. Real bloody. But not until then."

Dangerous last-minute Larry liberal attitude. Bruce Willis would be proud. But it may be all too late by then. Its part of the problem of uniting the West and getting people to proactively defend it.

Its part of the tough persona to not complain about the small things, else they look like a whimpy whinger.

Hubbell says "His last name and religion don’t matter". Bzzt! Failed right there, Angry White Man. Legal immigration is a problem, not just illegal. A dominant religion is important to acknowledge before you throw it away.

And he says "the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers..." Bzzt! Failed again. Too little too late Mr Bruce Willis. You should have complained, campaigned and - yes - led from the front a long time before that.

But to do that requires the Angry White man to speak up way before that magic line is crossed. Such white men are angry for one reason: they left it for somebody else to be the one to care.

But, we should acknowledge some angry types do manage to buck the stereotype and speak and act proactively. We need more of them to do so.

"This means identifying oneself as part of a larger whole,"Like a church? Good point you make here and I'm sure you realize that in fact some of these "angry white men" are active in churches.

But you are right, this is the philosphy and world outlook needed to pull back from the abyss of politocally correct, victim group identifying, socialism. Unfortunately, it is not embraced by enough as most people in general prefer the free handout and emotional pandering style that is rotting America from the inside out.

Good to know the pioneer spirit and mountain man spirit are alive and well but it seems they reject, de facto, the spirit of the Founding Fathers. What is described here is anti-intellectualism since higher thought is for ninnies and those too weak to fight back physically.

How is this fiercely independent, rugged individualism different from modern liberal individualism? Both seem motivated by perceived threats from the Other, more about separation from the bad than moving toward the good. Maybe only a social trauma can make us re-evaluate this retreat.

In any event we few countries should be very grateful we are not reduced to only urban agglomerations ruled by bureaucratic fixity. Where is the hope for them?

Abandon Skip, the Birmingham example is an interesting one. It illustrates a point I was going to make in the post, that if you have as a masculine ideal the attitude that "I will make it no matter what life throws at me", then not only are you likely to disregard the larger culture and tradition to which you belong, but you are also likely to lack forethought about what circumstances are likely to confront you down the track.

Birmingham hasn't considered that by the time his chix are being put in burqas he won't be in a position to resist.

Mandy, what I'm calling for might well include men taking responsibility for the religious tradition they belong to (rather than limiting their sights to membership of a local church).

Mandy, I took off your second comment because it seemed to misunderstand my argument as being literally a call to arms.

My argument is concerned more with what should happen in the normal operation of a society.

If there do still exist millions of capable, resourceful white men, and these men were to identify positively with their own tradition and think it their masculine responsibility to lead society to preserve this tradition, then we would make progress through the cultural, educational, religious and political institutions of society.

LeadPB writes: “What is described here is anti-intellectualism since higher thought is for ninnies and those too weak to fight back physically.”

How very very true.

I hate how being traditional is so often equated with being some kind of old world flannel shirt wearing southern comfort swilling musket brandishing unwashed Neanderthal.

Oh, and that comment about going to a strip club once in a blue moon… give me a break… I repudiate any definition of masculinity that reduced men to nothing more than walking penises. This is exactly the kind of ridicule that feminists make of men in the modern era.

They raise their children, live by their traditions, and participate in their communities.

They usually lead by example, not words. They rarely have time for rallies or letters to members of parliament.

Sure, some seek power, but nowhere near the numbers that the self involved leftists do.

Additionally, Birminghams' comment may be typical of a classical liberal or libertarian, but I don't agree it would come from the modern day liberal.

Most would either deny that it would ever happen (so self involved they are unable to perceive the outside world), and/or be secretly thinking they could somehow use this totalitarianism to further their own ends (the liberal fascist).

That is the end point of modern self absorbed liberalism: power over others so your selfish desires can be met.

This is partly off topic, but here is an observation of mine to the perceived "blindness of the masses" to the demographic changes occuring in Australia and other similiar western countries.

In the 1950's up til the early 1980's there was a lingering resentment towards the 'wogs' that had invaded our shores.

This all dissapated by the early 1990's.

But what it did was lull everyone into a false sense of security into the changes that were occuring in Australia.

The first wave of migrants, predominantly Southern Europeans was always going to be minimal due to the small populations of the feeder countries. And it in fact came to a grinding halt by 1985 because those countries were so far away and their economies had improved.

But the majority of Australians were finally convinved that immigration had virtually no negatives.

What most people do not realise is that the new feeder countries have infinitely more people to 'provide us' with, these countries are closer, and there does not seem to be a reason for these people not to want to come here.

Plus the fact that the cultural gaps between them and Australia are wider than the original Euro immigrants and we have a situation that most people do not understand.

The premise that "Angry White Men" have been forgotten is misconceived, along with the idea that "he might be a Republican or a Democrat". At least since 1994, AWM have been identified as the core of the Republican base.

Of course, being core has its disadvantages such as being taken for granted, but still the Republican platform is pretty solidly consistent with the concerns identified by Hubbell.

The real political problem for the AWM is that their party is widely discredited, in part because it's so obviously angry.

"What most people do not realise is that the new feeder countries have infinitely more people to 'provide us' with, these countries are closer, and there does not seem to be a reason for these people not to want to come here."

"Plus the fact that the cultural gaps between them and Australia are wider than the original Euro immigrants and we have a situation that most people do not understand."

Good point, one of the reasons multicultural thinking has so much support, is because, up to a point', it's been very successful.

The differences between southern, eastern and northern europeans have largely been reconciled in the US, Australia and NZ, but the current attempt to reconcile the differences between people from different continents, is a bridge too far -racially,culturally and demographically.

Over at the Club Troppo website a commenter named Gilmae had this to say about the article:

"The Angry White Man seems to like a lot of things. If not foremost amongst them, certainly close to the top is “The Angry White Man likes to sit around compiling navel-gazing lists in fits of angry self-definition.”

This is precisely the kind of attitude I was trying to describe, in which it's thought unmasculine to consider larger social or political issues. I wrote this reply:

"Gilmae, I’ve often heard the “navel gazing” charge raised by men who think they can survive solo without a concern for the larger social and political trends in society. It’s an overconfident position and, in my opinion, a fatally limited ideal of masculinity - one which abandons concern for politics and culture."

As an answer to the critics of Gary Hubbell, author of the short essay, the “Angry White Man,” I offer the following opinions. First, even though he does not accurately describe me personally, since I am at times a dish-rag; I even wash and fold them for the woman I love and our family, Hubbell does describe my father, my great uncles, and almost all of the men that had a formidable effect on my thinking. And by “thinking” I mean my existence, my being, the why and how of my daily efforts. He describes men to whose attributes I aspire. He his describing the men that built this country; he is depicting the men of the United States of America; the men who get it done. He is describing men that I love and admire.

I truly don’t believe that the word “angry” or “white” really belongs in the title of this description. We are not always angry and certainly we are not entirely white; we do not walk around looking for fights or exchanging arguments with the idiots who make these sissy rules. Most of the time we just take it, knowing deep down that these stupidities that the intelligentsia seems to be able to license as truths and knowledge will soon pass. We have lived most of ours lives believing that there could not be so many fools in the world, yet now, it seems that there are, and they seem to be running the world. They are everywhere; they are our neighbors, our customers, our second cousins and co-workers; they have become our local governing bodies, they might even be our brothers. Our Brothers! Raised in the same environment as ourselves, but taken by some forbidding force on some implausible tangent into absurdity.

I want to ask these critics of our “angry white men” a few questions. If your community was devastated by some disaster, natural or otherwise and civil disorder was rampant, looting and thuggery became the order of the day. Who would you look to for guidance, protection and leadership? Would it be the environmentally responsible Prius owner or the quiet guy at the end of the block, who is always messing around with his teenagers ATV, and happens to keep a 1976 Jeep and several extra gallons of gasoline in the garage? When the cold winds come, would you knock on the door of the tree hugger next door or the “angry white man” with the slightly disheveled yard and over-abundant wood-pile beside the shed that contains a back-up generator? Who would you ask to help you to feed your family; the veggan, whose refrigerator now holds nothing but wilted lettuce, tofu and soy beans, or the NRA member who bags a buck just about every year, then butchers, cooks and eats the deer?

And if events get really bad and gangs are roaming your neighborhood, raping and looting; would you run to your neighbor the socially responsible multicultural studies professor who also heads the local anti-gun group, who will undoubtedly be cowering in his basement, waiting for someone to rescue him or the “angry white man” who lives in the original one hundred year old farm-house, now surrounded by cookie cutter homes, who owns several handguns and knows how to use them?

In most cases, you would not have to look for “the angry white man,” he will be there, giving you guidance and help, without thinking about it, without wanting or expecting gratitude. It’s what he is. It’s who he is. His thanks will be in seeing you and your children live.

If you happen to be on an airplane, in another Flight 93 situation; who do you want on the plane with you? Would you prefer a delegation of the American Civil Liberties Union heading to San Francisco for a conference or a group of elk hunters on their way to a hunting expedition in Wyoming?

If, we ever find ourselves in a struggle to rebuild a civil society, who would you want as a leader? Would it be the local mayor, who took his oath of office on the Bible and believes in the constitution and all that it represents and maintains absolute understanding of its literal interpretation; or the semi-educated, misguided and idealistic college student who has spent several semesters with Karl Marx, learning and believing the devastating ruse of communism’s disproved theories?

Some of the critics out there may believe that the “angry white man” wishes for the scenarios described, and there probably are a few out there. However, the vast majority of us want nothing but to be left alone to do for ourselves, our families and our friends. We know that we can do it. Please stop telling us how to do it. Please stop making new laws that confuse and contort the meanings of right and wrong; legal and illegal. We want to and will proceed with our lives in methods that are logical, sensible and reasonable and we certainly resent that you, you who have nothing to offer, nothing to bargain, nothing to improve, insist on naming us as backward and stupid.

We are educated, maybe not in the great halls of Princeton or Harvard, but educated none the less, by our fathers, our mothers, our aunts and uncles, our high school coaches, by the mountain trails we hike and the streams we fish, our buddies at the lunch counter and our local bar, and in very many cases at Penn State or Michigan State, and perhaps most importantly by our own lives and the consequences of our decisions.

We resent that you do not understand the nature of our enemy, an enemy that attacked us; an enemy whose face you refuse to see. We resent that against all logic, you insist that all cultures are equal. And that a culture that will strap a bomb on their children gains more respect from you than a culture that feeds the world. We resent the faces of Hollywood you worship, which are the source of the hatred that the enemy feels towards us, directing disdain at us. Modern Hollywood is what our enemies know of us, and we are not modern Hollywood. We resent that you think we are the human dredges that appear on Jerry Springer, yet we absolutely detest the way that the human debris of your convoluted morality is paraded for your entertainment.

We resent that you refuse to understand that the free flow and affordability of oil is as important to you and the entire world as the air and water that you claim to regard as so precious. We cannot fathom a mind that refuses to understand that without oil, the world would be in a state of catastrophic chaos. Dependence on clean water and air are divine, yet to you, dependence on affordable oil is evil. We resent that you believe that we care nothing about the environment, when it is we who know that the current dependency on oil is a temporary affair in the history of man. The mind of man will find eventually find an alternative. We know, by our walks through the wilderness that in a very short time nature will recapture any ground we have moved and correct any mistakes that we have made. It always does and always will. We know that to believe, as you do, that the impact of man is more powerful than the laws of nature is insufferable arrogance.

We resent that while labeling us racists and, you hold Condoleeza Rice in abject contempt. To us, it does not matter if her ethnic background were white, Asian, Hispanic or American Indian. To us; she is “our girl.” And I believe most of us would be proud to be known as her “men.” Without doubt she clearly represents what is so very great about this country. And most of us look forward to the prospect she or a person like her runs for President. We resent that while you continue to present disagreement as disrespect, perform dissent as disloyalty, you always claim your intentions are misunderstood.

We resent the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama selling political snake oil to those that you and they have managed to dumb-down, confuse and bamboozle. We know that if they are successful with the sales pitch and enough of the population drinks the poison, we and our children will be stuck with the bill. We know it and feel trapped by the prospect. We know that you will still depend on us, and demand of us that we carry your load as well as our own. We resent this state of affairs even as we continue to be a slave to it. That it seems, is what we do. For how long is the eventual question.